UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION

Evening Star, Issue 21753, 22 June 1934, Page 6

UNDEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTION

HARBOUR BOARD REPRESENTATION COUNTRY DISTRICTS WANT INCREASE PAID COMMISSIONERS ALSO SUGGESTED 'An agitation for greater represented tion of the country- districts on 'the Harbour Board started a lengthy discussion . at last night’s meeting, when, among other things, the suggestion was advanced that the board should be abolished and the harbour, controlled by five paid commissioners. - . A letter from- the Lyttelton Board stated that that board had appointed a special committee to examine and port upon the whole question or the representation on the. board of its various constituent and combined districts - and- the payers of dues,- and . also to report upon the possibility of improving the franchise under which the various elections-were,.conducted. The questions which' the Lyttelton Board asked, with'the proposed replies drafted by the chairman and secretary, were as follow: Is ybuf board dissatisfied with the present basis of representation upon it of town, country, and payers of dues ? This question has not been under consideration for some time, and it cannot he said that the hoard is actively dissatisfied with the preseht position, although it is recognised that the existing distribution, particularly upon a population and rateable value basis, is far from being equitable from a representative point of view. Has your hoard under consideration any proposals for amending its representation ?—This board is of the opinion that any agitation for an alteration in the present representation should be by general public demand, and should not originate from the board itself, and accordingly until there is such a demand it is not proposed to take any action. . Mr R. S. Thompson said the reason why no demand had been made for an alteration of the constitution of the Otago Board was that the public did not realise the position. There was no question that New Zealanders prided themselves on being a democratic people and .country, but no one could by any ■stretch of the imagination say that the representation on the board was on a democratic principle. The proposed re-, ply did not go far enough. In view of the fact that the country representation was so small numerically in comparison with the rateable valuation and the population, the time for reconstitution was long overdue. Port Chalmers, with a population of 2.570, had two members. The various country districts had a population of over 46,000, yet they had only two representatives. That in itself was sufficient to' show that the constitution was entirely wrong. West Harbour had a population of 2,100 and one representative, *which clearly showed that there was class representation on the board. Members: No.

“ Well, call it group or special representation,” corrected Mr Thompson, ■“ I fail to see why those representatives should be here.” 1 If they went into the question of rateable values they would find Port Chalmers’ to be only £384,000, whereas the country’s .was nearly £10,000,000. . That further proved that the representation was .wrong. The Lyttelton Board’s constitution was evidently planned to give equal representation on the basis of population and rateable values. It had eight country members, four city and district representatives, one member appointed by the Government, and another for payers of dues on ships. Shipping companies were without representation, whereas they had two representatives on the Otago Board. _ The Lyttelton Borough had no individual representation. He did not think any fair-minded person would query a request to the Harbours Association to

investigate the constitutions of the various boards with a view to furnishing the Government with a scheme to give representation to every section of the community., ' The Chairman (Mr H. C. Campbell) ruled that Mr Thompson was out of order in bringing forward his proposals at this stage. • The question was being raised by the Lyttelton board. To Mr Thompson, Mr A. Campbell said: “You cannot- get away with that.”

Mr Thompson: It would not suit you for me to get away with it. Mr Campbell: Port Chalmers has reasons for its'representation, and you will find that out.

Mr Thompson said the country people wero ' responsible, directly and indirectly, for half of the board’s revenue, and that they should have only two representatives was vitally wrong. The proposed reply was not direct enough. He intended to give notice to move his suggestion. Mr T. Scollay said Mr Thompson’s trouble was that the country was not represented on the board. Why did ho not take steps to have that rectified? The Chairman: He is going to do so. . Mr Scollay said there was no objection on the board to larger representation of the country. “ After good experience, 1 think it would be a good thing if the whole of the boards were abolished as far as sectional interests are concerned,” said Mr Loudon..

Mr A. Campbell moved that the draft reply to the query be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr R. Duncan, who asked that an addition be made requesting the Lyttelton Board to carry the question to the Harbours Association. Mr Duncan asked if the present constitution of the board was as it ‘was originally laid down.

The Chairman: Yes; but there have been some alterations in the districts. At one time Moruiugtou and Roslyn had a representation. Mr Loudon said the abolition of sectional franchise would be a good thing for the administration of the board. Surely they could get five good men to conduct the board with due regard to the welfare of the community. They knew that a tremendous amount of friction was caused on the board by one section fighting the other. What Mr Thompson had said was perfectly true. The country appeared to be under-represented, but the whole princijple of sectional representation was wrong. He did not think work for the general good of the community would .be done until the board was free of sectional representation. Mr F. Jones, M.P. said Mr Thompson certainly had grounds for complaint. The Lyttelton Board’s representation varied from one member for 8,110 to 22,605 persons, while the Otago Board’s representation varied from one member for 1,285 to 25,640. The question was whether the board should have dual representation. Various sections were represented, but the waterside workers were unrepresented, although they wero as much entitled to have a member as shipping companies and payers of dues. It seemed that the representation was very mixed, and that sectional interests did not tend to promote the welfare of the board.' The general feeling was good, but they continually saw a clash of interests. If the Lyttelton Board took action a more uniform system throughout New Zealand might be produced. Personally, he believed in electoral, and not the sectional, representation. Mr Moller said Port Chalmers was entitled to representatives, as it was a port. The country did not care about the working of tho Harbour Board. The country only clamoured for a reduction of dues, _ while Port Chalmers took an interest in the harbour. The board had always had fine representatives from shipping companies (although he did not agree with them), but the country interests were not in the making of tho port! Their part was to have tho goods handled at the least cost and they let tho people in the city do the work.

“ I must object to that; it is entirely wrong,” said Mr Thompson, who was prevented by the chairman from making another speech. Mr J. B. Waters said the proper place for the discussion was the Harbours’ Association. Experiences of Sydney and Melbourne had proved that the best representation was by paid commissioners. Democracy placed in Parliament not trained organisers but trained talkers. (Loud laughter from Mr Jones.) Men who talked most and promised most were put in office, but they were not the best organisers. Mr Jones (laughing): We all know Mr Waters. The Chairman said the Port of London Authority was managed by a board • such as they had in New Zealand, and in the past twenty years it had undertaken and carried through a gigantic undertaking. Mr Begg said the Lyttelton Board, which instituted the inquiry, appeared to have a grievance. Mr Thompson was fully justified in bringing the need for revision forward. The board was the Otago Harbour Board, and sectional and local interests should be submerged. Mr Thompson said the matter would be held up for at least six months, as the proposed recommendation could not be placed on the agenda at next week’s meeting. Mr Holler was entirely wrong in alleging that the country electors desired only reduced charges. They were prepared to pay a fair price for service. If the country has two or eight representatives, it would work in the interests of Otago. He was satisfied that the board would not be in its present position if eight country members had been on in the past twenty years. Mr Jones: Is that why the Parliament of the day is so good? Mr Thompson: Yes. They are all righ t. Mr Thompson said that it was pointed out at the last annual conference of the Otago Farmers’ Union that the Harbour Board was the only public body in Otago which had not reduced its charges. Tho farmers were becoming restive. Mr A. Campbell said the argument Town v. Country had been frequently raised, but he had never adopted a parochial attitude. His interests had always been those of Otago Harbour. Ho did not think tho country wanted greater representation, or it would have agitated for it. Mr Campbell criticised Mr Thompson’s condemnation at meetings of the Farmers’ Union of tho board’s actions. If tho country had greater representation, tho board would have gone further back in recent years. Mr Thompson: No. Mr A. Campbell said the board had done its best to advance the harbour. It would have gone further back if more country members had been on it. Mr Thompson: No. “It is time that the board was abolished and a commission set up,” declared Mr Campbell. “It would save all this bother of Town v. Country fighting.” The draft reply, with tho suggestion that the Lyttelton Board takes up the question with the Harbour Association was approved. “ All that for nothing,” commented Mr A. Campbell, as the board passed to the next business.